Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:58 -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:02:07 -0400 (EDT) John L <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I have to say that the more discussion I see from advocates of SSP, the 
>less I think that anyone really understands what it's supposed to do.
>
>So here's the main SSP axiom that I think should be self-evident, but 
>apparently isn't: other than the trivial (but useful) case of I send no 
>mail, the most that SSP can tell you is that a signature is missing.
>
I take it then that you see distinguishing between first party and third 
party signatures as either being of no value or not being feasible?

I ask because from my perspective, that is an essential feature for a 
policy protocol to have significant utility.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 2006 15:46:41 -0000

>party signatures as either being of no value or not being feasible?

I don't see the phrases "first party" or "third party" in there,
either explictly or otherwise.

R's,
John

PS: The SSP fog just keeps getting thicker.